Orthodontic bonding to silicate ceramics: impact of different pretreatment methods on shear bond strength between ceramic restorations and ceramic brackets
Objective The study aims to investigate the shear bond strength (SBS) between silicate ceramic restorations and ceramic brackets after different pretreatments and aging methods. Material and methods Leucite (LEU) and lithium disilicate (LiSi) specimens were pretreated with (i) 4% hydrofluoric acid +...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Jungbauer, Rebecca [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2021 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Anmerkung: |
© The Author(s) 2021 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Clinical Oral Investigations - Springer-Verlag, 2001, 26(2021), 3 vom: 18. Nov., Seite 2827-2837 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:26 ; year:2021 ; number:3 ; day:18 ; month:11 ; pages:2827-2837 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1007/s00784-021-04260-5 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
SPR046402268 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | SPR046402268 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230507123356.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 220306s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s00784-021-04260-5 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)SPR046402268 | ||
| 035 | |a (SPR)s00784-021-04260-5-e | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Jungbauer, Rebecca |e verfasserin |0 (orcid)0000-0002-8261-4342 |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Orthodontic bonding to silicate ceramics: impact of different pretreatment methods on shear bond strength between ceramic restorations and ceramic brackets |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2021 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a © The Author(s) 2021 | ||
| 520 | |a Objective The study aims to investigate the shear bond strength (SBS) between silicate ceramic restorations and ceramic brackets after different pretreatments and aging methods. Material and methods Leucite (LEU) and lithium disilicate (LiSi) specimens were pretreated with (i) 4% hydrofluoric acid + silane (HF), (ii) Monobond Etch&Prime (MEP), (iii) silicatization + silane (CoJet), and (iv) SiC grinder + silane (SiC). Molars etched (phosphoric acid) and conditioned acted as comparison group. SBS was measured after 24 h (distilled water, 37 °C), 500 × thermocycling (5/55 °C), and 90 days (distilled water, 37 °C). Data was analyzed using Shapiro–Wilk, Kruskal–Wallis with Dunn’s post hoc test and Bonferroni correction, Mann–Whitney U, and $ Chi^{2} $ test (p < 0.05). The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was determined. Results LEU pretreated with MEP showed lower SBS than pretreated with HF, CoJet, or SiC. LiSi pretreated with MEP resulted in lower initial SBS than pretreated with HF or SiC. After thermocycling, pretreatment using MEP led to lower SBS than with CoJet. Within LiSi group, after 90 days, the pretreatment using SiC resulted in lowest SBS values. After HF and MEP pretreatment, LEU showed lower initial SBS than LiSi. After 90 days of water storage, within specimens pretreated using CoJet or SiC showed LEU higher SBS than LiSi. Enamel presented higher or comparable SBS values to LEU and LiSi. With exception of MEP pretreatment, ARI 3 was predominantly observed, regardless the substrate, pretreatment, and aging level. Conclusions MEP pretreatment presented the lowest SBS values, regardless the silicate ceramic and aging level. Further research is necessary. Clinical relevance There is no need for intraoral application of HF for orthodontic treatment. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Silicate ceramic |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Orthodontic bonding |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Shear bond strength |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Ceramic bracket |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Pretreatment |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Kirschneck, Christian |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Hammer, Christian M. |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Proff, Peter |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Edelhoff, Daniel |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Stawarczyk, Bogna |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Clinical Oral Investigations |d Springer-Verlag, 2001 |g 26(2021), 3 vom: 18. Nov., Seite 2827-2837 |w (DE-627)SPR007794231 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:26 |g year:2021 |g number:3 |g day:18 |g month:11 |g pages:2827-2837 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-04260-5 |z kostenfrei |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_SPRINGER | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 26 |j 2021 |e 3 |b 18 |c 11 |h 2827-2837 | ||
| author_variant |
r j rj c k ck c m h cm cmh p p pp d e de b s bs |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
jungbauerrebeccakirschneckchristianhamme:2021----:rhdnibnigoiiaeeaismatfifrnperamnmtosnhabnsrntbten |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2021 |
| publishDate |
2021 |
| allfields |
10.1007/s00784-021-04260-5 doi (DE-627)SPR046402268 (SPR)s00784-021-04260-5-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Jungbauer, Rebecca verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-8261-4342 aut Orthodontic bonding to silicate ceramics: impact of different pretreatment methods on shear bond strength between ceramic restorations and ceramic brackets 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2021 Objective The study aims to investigate the shear bond strength (SBS) between silicate ceramic restorations and ceramic brackets after different pretreatments and aging methods. Material and methods Leucite (LEU) and lithium disilicate (LiSi) specimens were pretreated with (i) 4% hydrofluoric acid + silane (HF), (ii) Monobond Etch&Prime (MEP), (iii) silicatization + silane (CoJet), and (iv) SiC grinder + silane (SiC). Molars etched (phosphoric acid) and conditioned acted as comparison group. SBS was measured after 24 h (distilled water, 37 °C), 500 × thermocycling (5/55 °C), and 90 days (distilled water, 37 °C). Data was analyzed using Shapiro–Wilk, Kruskal–Wallis with Dunn’s post hoc test and Bonferroni correction, Mann–Whitney U, and $ Chi^{2} $ test (p < 0.05). The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was determined. Results LEU pretreated with MEP showed lower SBS than pretreated with HF, CoJet, or SiC. LiSi pretreated with MEP resulted in lower initial SBS than pretreated with HF or SiC. After thermocycling, pretreatment using MEP led to lower SBS than with CoJet. Within LiSi group, after 90 days, the pretreatment using SiC resulted in lowest SBS values. After HF and MEP pretreatment, LEU showed lower initial SBS than LiSi. After 90 days of water storage, within specimens pretreated using CoJet or SiC showed LEU higher SBS than LiSi. Enamel presented higher or comparable SBS values to LEU and LiSi. With exception of MEP pretreatment, ARI 3 was predominantly observed, regardless the substrate, pretreatment, and aging level. Conclusions MEP pretreatment presented the lowest SBS values, regardless the silicate ceramic and aging level. Further research is necessary. Clinical relevance There is no need for intraoral application of HF for orthodontic treatment. Silicate ceramic (dpeaa)DE-He213 Orthodontic bonding (dpeaa)DE-He213 Shear bond strength (dpeaa)DE-He213 Ceramic bracket (dpeaa)DE-He213 Pretreatment (dpeaa)DE-He213 Kirschneck, Christian aut Hammer, Christian M. aut Proff, Peter aut Edelhoff, Daniel aut Stawarczyk, Bogna aut Enthalten in Clinical Oral Investigations Springer-Verlag, 2001 26(2021), 3 vom: 18. Nov., Seite 2827-2837 (DE-627)SPR007794231 nnns volume:26 year:2021 number:3 day:18 month:11 pages:2827-2837 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-04260-5 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER AR 26 2021 3 18 11 2827-2837 |
| spelling |
10.1007/s00784-021-04260-5 doi (DE-627)SPR046402268 (SPR)s00784-021-04260-5-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Jungbauer, Rebecca verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-8261-4342 aut Orthodontic bonding to silicate ceramics: impact of different pretreatment methods on shear bond strength between ceramic restorations and ceramic brackets 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2021 Objective The study aims to investigate the shear bond strength (SBS) between silicate ceramic restorations and ceramic brackets after different pretreatments and aging methods. Material and methods Leucite (LEU) and lithium disilicate (LiSi) specimens were pretreated with (i) 4% hydrofluoric acid + silane (HF), (ii) Monobond Etch&Prime (MEP), (iii) silicatization + silane (CoJet), and (iv) SiC grinder + silane (SiC). Molars etched (phosphoric acid) and conditioned acted as comparison group. SBS was measured after 24 h (distilled water, 37 °C), 500 × thermocycling (5/55 °C), and 90 days (distilled water, 37 °C). Data was analyzed using Shapiro–Wilk, Kruskal–Wallis with Dunn’s post hoc test and Bonferroni correction, Mann–Whitney U, and $ Chi^{2} $ test (p < 0.05). The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was determined. Results LEU pretreated with MEP showed lower SBS than pretreated with HF, CoJet, or SiC. LiSi pretreated with MEP resulted in lower initial SBS than pretreated with HF or SiC. After thermocycling, pretreatment using MEP led to lower SBS than with CoJet. Within LiSi group, after 90 days, the pretreatment using SiC resulted in lowest SBS values. After HF and MEP pretreatment, LEU showed lower initial SBS than LiSi. After 90 days of water storage, within specimens pretreated using CoJet or SiC showed LEU higher SBS than LiSi. Enamel presented higher or comparable SBS values to LEU and LiSi. With exception of MEP pretreatment, ARI 3 was predominantly observed, regardless the substrate, pretreatment, and aging level. Conclusions MEP pretreatment presented the lowest SBS values, regardless the silicate ceramic and aging level. Further research is necessary. Clinical relevance There is no need for intraoral application of HF for orthodontic treatment. Silicate ceramic (dpeaa)DE-He213 Orthodontic bonding (dpeaa)DE-He213 Shear bond strength (dpeaa)DE-He213 Ceramic bracket (dpeaa)DE-He213 Pretreatment (dpeaa)DE-He213 Kirschneck, Christian aut Hammer, Christian M. aut Proff, Peter aut Edelhoff, Daniel aut Stawarczyk, Bogna aut Enthalten in Clinical Oral Investigations Springer-Verlag, 2001 26(2021), 3 vom: 18. Nov., Seite 2827-2837 (DE-627)SPR007794231 nnns volume:26 year:2021 number:3 day:18 month:11 pages:2827-2837 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-04260-5 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER AR 26 2021 3 18 11 2827-2837 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1007/s00784-021-04260-5 doi (DE-627)SPR046402268 (SPR)s00784-021-04260-5-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Jungbauer, Rebecca verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-8261-4342 aut Orthodontic bonding to silicate ceramics: impact of different pretreatment methods on shear bond strength between ceramic restorations and ceramic brackets 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2021 Objective The study aims to investigate the shear bond strength (SBS) between silicate ceramic restorations and ceramic brackets after different pretreatments and aging methods. Material and methods Leucite (LEU) and lithium disilicate (LiSi) specimens were pretreated with (i) 4% hydrofluoric acid + silane (HF), (ii) Monobond Etch&Prime (MEP), (iii) silicatization + silane (CoJet), and (iv) SiC grinder + silane (SiC). Molars etched (phosphoric acid) and conditioned acted as comparison group. SBS was measured after 24 h (distilled water, 37 °C), 500 × thermocycling (5/55 °C), and 90 days (distilled water, 37 °C). Data was analyzed using Shapiro–Wilk, Kruskal–Wallis with Dunn’s post hoc test and Bonferroni correction, Mann–Whitney U, and $ Chi^{2} $ test (p < 0.05). The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was determined. Results LEU pretreated with MEP showed lower SBS than pretreated with HF, CoJet, or SiC. LiSi pretreated with MEP resulted in lower initial SBS than pretreated with HF or SiC. After thermocycling, pretreatment using MEP led to lower SBS than with CoJet. Within LiSi group, after 90 days, the pretreatment using SiC resulted in lowest SBS values. After HF and MEP pretreatment, LEU showed lower initial SBS than LiSi. After 90 days of water storage, within specimens pretreated using CoJet or SiC showed LEU higher SBS than LiSi. Enamel presented higher or comparable SBS values to LEU and LiSi. With exception of MEP pretreatment, ARI 3 was predominantly observed, regardless the substrate, pretreatment, and aging level. Conclusions MEP pretreatment presented the lowest SBS values, regardless the silicate ceramic and aging level. Further research is necessary. Clinical relevance There is no need for intraoral application of HF for orthodontic treatment. Silicate ceramic (dpeaa)DE-He213 Orthodontic bonding (dpeaa)DE-He213 Shear bond strength (dpeaa)DE-He213 Ceramic bracket (dpeaa)DE-He213 Pretreatment (dpeaa)DE-He213 Kirschneck, Christian aut Hammer, Christian M. aut Proff, Peter aut Edelhoff, Daniel aut Stawarczyk, Bogna aut Enthalten in Clinical Oral Investigations Springer-Verlag, 2001 26(2021), 3 vom: 18. Nov., Seite 2827-2837 (DE-627)SPR007794231 nnns volume:26 year:2021 number:3 day:18 month:11 pages:2827-2837 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-04260-5 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER AR 26 2021 3 18 11 2827-2837 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1007/s00784-021-04260-5 doi (DE-627)SPR046402268 (SPR)s00784-021-04260-5-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Jungbauer, Rebecca verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-8261-4342 aut Orthodontic bonding to silicate ceramics: impact of different pretreatment methods on shear bond strength between ceramic restorations and ceramic brackets 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2021 Objective The study aims to investigate the shear bond strength (SBS) between silicate ceramic restorations and ceramic brackets after different pretreatments and aging methods. Material and methods Leucite (LEU) and lithium disilicate (LiSi) specimens were pretreated with (i) 4% hydrofluoric acid + silane (HF), (ii) Monobond Etch&Prime (MEP), (iii) silicatization + silane (CoJet), and (iv) SiC grinder + silane (SiC). Molars etched (phosphoric acid) and conditioned acted as comparison group. SBS was measured after 24 h (distilled water, 37 °C), 500 × thermocycling (5/55 °C), and 90 days (distilled water, 37 °C). Data was analyzed using Shapiro–Wilk, Kruskal–Wallis with Dunn’s post hoc test and Bonferroni correction, Mann–Whitney U, and $ Chi^{2} $ test (p < 0.05). The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was determined. Results LEU pretreated with MEP showed lower SBS than pretreated with HF, CoJet, or SiC. LiSi pretreated with MEP resulted in lower initial SBS than pretreated with HF or SiC. After thermocycling, pretreatment using MEP led to lower SBS than with CoJet. Within LiSi group, after 90 days, the pretreatment using SiC resulted in lowest SBS values. After HF and MEP pretreatment, LEU showed lower initial SBS than LiSi. After 90 days of water storage, within specimens pretreated using CoJet or SiC showed LEU higher SBS than LiSi. Enamel presented higher or comparable SBS values to LEU and LiSi. With exception of MEP pretreatment, ARI 3 was predominantly observed, regardless the substrate, pretreatment, and aging level. Conclusions MEP pretreatment presented the lowest SBS values, regardless the silicate ceramic and aging level. Further research is necessary. Clinical relevance There is no need for intraoral application of HF for orthodontic treatment. Silicate ceramic (dpeaa)DE-He213 Orthodontic bonding (dpeaa)DE-He213 Shear bond strength (dpeaa)DE-He213 Ceramic bracket (dpeaa)DE-He213 Pretreatment (dpeaa)DE-He213 Kirschneck, Christian aut Hammer, Christian M. aut Proff, Peter aut Edelhoff, Daniel aut Stawarczyk, Bogna aut Enthalten in Clinical Oral Investigations Springer-Verlag, 2001 26(2021), 3 vom: 18. Nov., Seite 2827-2837 (DE-627)SPR007794231 nnns volume:26 year:2021 number:3 day:18 month:11 pages:2827-2837 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-04260-5 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER AR 26 2021 3 18 11 2827-2837 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1007/s00784-021-04260-5 doi (DE-627)SPR046402268 (SPR)s00784-021-04260-5-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Jungbauer, Rebecca verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-8261-4342 aut Orthodontic bonding to silicate ceramics: impact of different pretreatment methods on shear bond strength between ceramic restorations and ceramic brackets 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2021 Objective The study aims to investigate the shear bond strength (SBS) between silicate ceramic restorations and ceramic brackets after different pretreatments and aging methods. Material and methods Leucite (LEU) and lithium disilicate (LiSi) specimens were pretreated with (i) 4% hydrofluoric acid + silane (HF), (ii) Monobond Etch&Prime (MEP), (iii) silicatization + silane (CoJet), and (iv) SiC grinder + silane (SiC). Molars etched (phosphoric acid) and conditioned acted as comparison group. SBS was measured after 24 h (distilled water, 37 °C), 500 × thermocycling (5/55 °C), and 90 days (distilled water, 37 °C). Data was analyzed using Shapiro–Wilk, Kruskal–Wallis with Dunn’s post hoc test and Bonferroni correction, Mann–Whitney U, and $ Chi^{2} $ test (p < 0.05). The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was determined. Results LEU pretreated with MEP showed lower SBS than pretreated with HF, CoJet, or SiC. LiSi pretreated with MEP resulted in lower initial SBS than pretreated with HF or SiC. After thermocycling, pretreatment using MEP led to lower SBS than with CoJet. Within LiSi group, after 90 days, the pretreatment using SiC resulted in lowest SBS values. After HF and MEP pretreatment, LEU showed lower initial SBS than LiSi. After 90 days of water storage, within specimens pretreated using CoJet or SiC showed LEU higher SBS than LiSi. Enamel presented higher or comparable SBS values to LEU and LiSi. With exception of MEP pretreatment, ARI 3 was predominantly observed, regardless the substrate, pretreatment, and aging level. Conclusions MEP pretreatment presented the lowest SBS values, regardless the silicate ceramic and aging level. Further research is necessary. Clinical relevance There is no need for intraoral application of HF for orthodontic treatment. Silicate ceramic (dpeaa)DE-He213 Orthodontic bonding (dpeaa)DE-He213 Shear bond strength (dpeaa)DE-He213 Ceramic bracket (dpeaa)DE-He213 Pretreatment (dpeaa)DE-He213 Kirschneck, Christian aut Hammer, Christian M. aut Proff, Peter aut Edelhoff, Daniel aut Stawarczyk, Bogna aut Enthalten in Clinical Oral Investigations Springer-Verlag, 2001 26(2021), 3 vom: 18. Nov., Seite 2827-2837 (DE-627)SPR007794231 nnns volume:26 year:2021 number:3 day:18 month:11 pages:2827-2837 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-04260-5 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER AR 26 2021 3 18 11 2827-2837 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Clinical Oral Investigations 26(2021), 3 vom: 18. Nov., Seite 2827-2837 volume:26 year:2021 number:3 day:18 month:11 pages:2827-2837 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Clinical Oral Investigations 26(2021), 3 vom: 18. Nov., Seite 2827-2837 volume:26 year:2021 number:3 day:18 month:11 pages:2827-2837 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Silicate ceramic Orthodontic bonding Shear bond strength Ceramic bracket Pretreatment |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
true |
| container_title |
Clinical Oral Investigations |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Jungbauer, Rebecca @@aut@@ Kirschneck, Christian @@aut@@ Hammer, Christian M. @@aut@@ Proff, Peter @@aut@@ Edelhoff, Daniel @@aut@@ Stawarczyk, Bogna @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2021-11-18T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
SPR007794231 |
| id |
SPR046402268 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR046402268</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230507123356.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">220306s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s00784-021-04260-5</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR046402268</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s00784-021-04260-5-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jungbauer, Rebecca</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0002-8261-4342</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Orthodontic bonding to silicate ceramics: impact of different pretreatment methods on shear bond strength between ceramic restorations and ceramic brackets</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s) 2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Objective The study aims to investigate the shear bond strength (SBS) between silicate ceramic restorations and ceramic brackets after different pretreatments and aging methods. Material and methods Leucite (LEU) and lithium disilicate (LiSi) specimens were pretreated with (i) 4% hydrofluoric acid + silane (HF), (ii) Monobond Etch&Prime (MEP), (iii) silicatization + silane (CoJet), and (iv) SiC grinder + silane (SiC). Molars etched (phosphoric acid) and conditioned acted as comparison group. SBS was measured after 24 h (distilled water, 37 °C), 500 × thermocycling (5/55 °C), and 90 days (distilled water, 37 °C). Data was analyzed using Shapiro–Wilk, Kruskal–Wallis with Dunn’s post hoc test and Bonferroni correction, Mann–Whitney U, and $ Chi^{2} $ test (p < 0.05). The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was determined. Results LEU pretreated with MEP showed lower SBS than pretreated with HF, CoJet, or SiC. LiSi pretreated with MEP resulted in lower initial SBS than pretreated with HF or SiC. After thermocycling, pretreatment using MEP led to lower SBS than with CoJet. Within LiSi group, after 90 days, the pretreatment using SiC resulted in lowest SBS values. After HF and MEP pretreatment, LEU showed lower initial SBS than LiSi. After 90 days of water storage, within specimens pretreated using CoJet or SiC showed LEU higher SBS than LiSi. Enamel presented higher or comparable SBS values to LEU and LiSi. With exception of MEP pretreatment, ARI 3 was predominantly observed, regardless the substrate, pretreatment, and aging level. Conclusions MEP pretreatment presented the lowest SBS values, regardless the silicate ceramic and aging level. Further research is necessary. Clinical relevance There is no need for intraoral application of HF for orthodontic treatment.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Silicate ceramic</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Orthodontic bonding</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Shear bond strength</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Ceramic bracket</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Pretreatment</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kirschneck, Christian</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hammer, Christian M.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Proff, Peter</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Edelhoff, Daniel</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Stawarczyk, Bogna</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Clinical Oral Investigations</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer-Verlag, 2001</subfield><subfield code="g">26(2021), 3 vom: 18. Nov., Seite 2827-2837</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)SPR007794231</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:26</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2021</subfield><subfield code="g">number:3</subfield><subfield code="g">day:18</subfield><subfield code="g">month:11</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:2827-2837</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-04260-5</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">26</subfield><subfield code="j">2021</subfield><subfield code="e">3</subfield><subfield code="b">18</subfield><subfield code="c">11</subfield><subfield code="h">2827-2837</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Jungbauer, Rebecca |
| spellingShingle |
Jungbauer, Rebecca misc Silicate ceramic misc Orthodontic bonding misc Shear bond strength misc Ceramic bracket misc Pretreatment Orthodontic bonding to silicate ceramics: impact of different pretreatment methods on shear bond strength between ceramic restorations and ceramic brackets |
| authorStr |
Jungbauer, Rebecca |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)SPR007794231 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut aut aut aut aut |
| collection |
springer |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| topic_title |
Orthodontic bonding to silicate ceramics: impact of different pretreatment methods on shear bond strength between ceramic restorations and ceramic brackets Silicate ceramic (dpeaa)DE-He213 Orthodontic bonding (dpeaa)DE-He213 Shear bond strength (dpeaa)DE-He213 Ceramic bracket (dpeaa)DE-He213 Pretreatment (dpeaa)DE-He213 |
| topic |
misc Silicate ceramic misc Orthodontic bonding misc Shear bond strength misc Ceramic bracket misc Pretreatment |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc Silicate ceramic misc Orthodontic bonding misc Shear bond strength misc Ceramic bracket misc Pretreatment |
| topic_browse |
misc Silicate ceramic misc Orthodontic bonding misc Shear bond strength misc Ceramic bracket misc Pretreatment |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Clinical Oral Investigations |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
SPR007794231 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Clinical Oral Investigations |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
true |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)SPR007794231 |
| title |
Orthodontic bonding to silicate ceramics: impact of different pretreatment methods on shear bond strength between ceramic restorations and ceramic brackets |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)SPR046402268 (SPR)s00784-021-04260-5-e |
| title_full |
Orthodontic bonding to silicate ceramics: impact of different pretreatment methods on shear bond strength between ceramic restorations and ceramic brackets |
| author_sort |
Jungbauer, Rebecca |
| journal |
Clinical Oral Investigations |
| journalStr |
Clinical Oral Investigations |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
true |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2021 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
2827 |
| author_browse |
Jungbauer, Rebecca Kirschneck, Christian Hammer, Christian M. Proff, Peter Edelhoff, Daniel Stawarczyk, Bogna |
| container_volume |
26 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Jungbauer, Rebecca |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1007/s00784-021-04260-5 |
| normlink |
(ORCID)0000-0002-8261-4342 |
| normlink_prefix_str_mv |
(orcid)0000-0002-8261-4342 |
| title_sort |
orthodontic bonding to silicate ceramics: impact of different pretreatment methods on shear bond strength between ceramic restorations and ceramic brackets |
| title_auth |
Orthodontic bonding to silicate ceramics: impact of different pretreatment methods on shear bond strength between ceramic restorations and ceramic brackets |
| abstract |
Objective The study aims to investigate the shear bond strength (SBS) between silicate ceramic restorations and ceramic brackets after different pretreatments and aging methods. Material and methods Leucite (LEU) and lithium disilicate (LiSi) specimens were pretreated with (i) 4% hydrofluoric acid + silane (HF), (ii) Monobond Etch&Prime (MEP), (iii) silicatization + silane (CoJet), and (iv) SiC grinder + silane (SiC). Molars etched (phosphoric acid) and conditioned acted as comparison group. SBS was measured after 24 h (distilled water, 37 °C), 500 × thermocycling (5/55 °C), and 90 days (distilled water, 37 °C). Data was analyzed using Shapiro–Wilk, Kruskal–Wallis with Dunn’s post hoc test and Bonferroni correction, Mann–Whitney U, and $ Chi^{2} $ test (p < 0.05). The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was determined. Results LEU pretreated with MEP showed lower SBS than pretreated with HF, CoJet, or SiC. LiSi pretreated with MEP resulted in lower initial SBS than pretreated with HF or SiC. After thermocycling, pretreatment using MEP led to lower SBS than with CoJet. Within LiSi group, after 90 days, the pretreatment using SiC resulted in lowest SBS values. After HF and MEP pretreatment, LEU showed lower initial SBS than LiSi. After 90 days of water storage, within specimens pretreated using CoJet or SiC showed LEU higher SBS than LiSi. Enamel presented higher or comparable SBS values to LEU and LiSi. With exception of MEP pretreatment, ARI 3 was predominantly observed, regardless the substrate, pretreatment, and aging level. Conclusions MEP pretreatment presented the lowest SBS values, regardless the silicate ceramic and aging level. Further research is necessary. Clinical relevance There is no need for intraoral application of HF for orthodontic treatment. © The Author(s) 2021 |
| abstractGer |
Objective The study aims to investigate the shear bond strength (SBS) between silicate ceramic restorations and ceramic brackets after different pretreatments and aging methods. Material and methods Leucite (LEU) and lithium disilicate (LiSi) specimens were pretreated with (i) 4% hydrofluoric acid + silane (HF), (ii) Monobond Etch&Prime (MEP), (iii) silicatization + silane (CoJet), and (iv) SiC grinder + silane (SiC). Molars etched (phosphoric acid) and conditioned acted as comparison group. SBS was measured after 24 h (distilled water, 37 °C), 500 × thermocycling (5/55 °C), and 90 days (distilled water, 37 °C). Data was analyzed using Shapiro–Wilk, Kruskal–Wallis with Dunn’s post hoc test and Bonferroni correction, Mann–Whitney U, and $ Chi^{2} $ test (p < 0.05). The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was determined. Results LEU pretreated with MEP showed lower SBS than pretreated with HF, CoJet, or SiC. LiSi pretreated with MEP resulted in lower initial SBS than pretreated with HF or SiC. After thermocycling, pretreatment using MEP led to lower SBS than with CoJet. Within LiSi group, after 90 days, the pretreatment using SiC resulted in lowest SBS values. After HF and MEP pretreatment, LEU showed lower initial SBS than LiSi. After 90 days of water storage, within specimens pretreated using CoJet or SiC showed LEU higher SBS than LiSi. Enamel presented higher or comparable SBS values to LEU and LiSi. With exception of MEP pretreatment, ARI 3 was predominantly observed, regardless the substrate, pretreatment, and aging level. Conclusions MEP pretreatment presented the lowest SBS values, regardless the silicate ceramic and aging level. Further research is necessary. Clinical relevance There is no need for intraoral application of HF for orthodontic treatment. © The Author(s) 2021 |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Objective The study aims to investigate the shear bond strength (SBS) between silicate ceramic restorations and ceramic brackets after different pretreatments and aging methods. Material and methods Leucite (LEU) and lithium disilicate (LiSi) specimens were pretreated with (i) 4% hydrofluoric acid + silane (HF), (ii) Monobond Etch&Prime (MEP), (iii) silicatization + silane (CoJet), and (iv) SiC grinder + silane (SiC). Molars etched (phosphoric acid) and conditioned acted as comparison group. SBS was measured after 24 h (distilled water, 37 °C), 500 × thermocycling (5/55 °C), and 90 days (distilled water, 37 °C). Data was analyzed using Shapiro–Wilk, Kruskal–Wallis with Dunn’s post hoc test and Bonferroni correction, Mann–Whitney U, and $ Chi^{2} $ test (p < 0.05). The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was determined. Results LEU pretreated with MEP showed lower SBS than pretreated with HF, CoJet, or SiC. LiSi pretreated with MEP resulted in lower initial SBS than pretreated with HF or SiC. After thermocycling, pretreatment using MEP led to lower SBS than with CoJet. Within LiSi group, after 90 days, the pretreatment using SiC resulted in lowest SBS values. After HF and MEP pretreatment, LEU showed lower initial SBS than LiSi. After 90 days of water storage, within specimens pretreated using CoJet or SiC showed LEU higher SBS than LiSi. Enamel presented higher or comparable SBS values to LEU and LiSi. With exception of MEP pretreatment, ARI 3 was predominantly observed, regardless the substrate, pretreatment, and aging level. Conclusions MEP pretreatment presented the lowest SBS values, regardless the silicate ceramic and aging level. Further research is necessary. Clinical relevance There is no need for intraoral application of HF for orthodontic treatment. © The Author(s) 2021 |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER |
| container_issue |
3 |
| title_short |
Orthodontic bonding to silicate ceramics: impact of different pretreatment methods on shear bond strength between ceramic restorations and ceramic brackets |
| url |
https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-04260-5 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Kirschneck, Christian Hammer, Christian M. Proff, Peter Edelhoff, Daniel Stawarczyk, Bogna |
| author2Str |
Kirschneck, Christian Hammer, Christian M. Proff, Peter Edelhoff, Daniel Stawarczyk, Bogna |
| ppnlink |
SPR007794231 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
true |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1007/s00784-021-04260-5 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T22:18:43.527Z |
| _version_ |
1803598035448496128 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR046402268</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230507123356.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">220306s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s00784-021-04260-5</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR046402268</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s00784-021-04260-5-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jungbauer, Rebecca</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0002-8261-4342</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Orthodontic bonding to silicate ceramics: impact of different pretreatment methods on shear bond strength between ceramic restorations and ceramic brackets</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s) 2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Objective The study aims to investigate the shear bond strength (SBS) between silicate ceramic restorations and ceramic brackets after different pretreatments and aging methods. Material and methods Leucite (LEU) and lithium disilicate (LiSi) specimens were pretreated with (i) 4% hydrofluoric acid + silane (HF), (ii) Monobond Etch&Prime (MEP), (iii) silicatization + silane (CoJet), and (iv) SiC grinder + silane (SiC). Molars etched (phosphoric acid) and conditioned acted as comparison group. SBS was measured after 24 h (distilled water, 37 °C), 500 × thermocycling (5/55 °C), and 90 days (distilled water, 37 °C). Data was analyzed using Shapiro–Wilk, Kruskal–Wallis with Dunn’s post hoc test and Bonferroni correction, Mann–Whitney U, and $ Chi^{2} $ test (p < 0.05). The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was determined. Results LEU pretreated with MEP showed lower SBS than pretreated with HF, CoJet, or SiC. LiSi pretreated with MEP resulted in lower initial SBS than pretreated with HF or SiC. After thermocycling, pretreatment using MEP led to lower SBS than with CoJet. Within LiSi group, after 90 days, the pretreatment using SiC resulted in lowest SBS values. After HF and MEP pretreatment, LEU showed lower initial SBS than LiSi. After 90 days of water storage, within specimens pretreated using CoJet or SiC showed LEU higher SBS than LiSi. Enamel presented higher or comparable SBS values to LEU and LiSi. With exception of MEP pretreatment, ARI 3 was predominantly observed, regardless the substrate, pretreatment, and aging level. Conclusions MEP pretreatment presented the lowest SBS values, regardless the silicate ceramic and aging level. Further research is necessary. Clinical relevance There is no need for intraoral application of HF for orthodontic treatment.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Silicate ceramic</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Orthodontic bonding</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Shear bond strength</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Ceramic bracket</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Pretreatment</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kirschneck, Christian</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hammer, Christian M.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Proff, Peter</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Edelhoff, Daniel</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Stawarczyk, Bogna</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Clinical Oral Investigations</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer-Verlag, 2001</subfield><subfield code="g">26(2021), 3 vom: 18. Nov., Seite 2827-2837</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)SPR007794231</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:26</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2021</subfield><subfield code="g">number:3</subfield><subfield code="g">day:18</subfield><subfield code="g">month:11</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:2827-2837</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-04260-5</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">26</subfield><subfield code="j">2021</subfield><subfield code="e">3</subfield><subfield code="b">18</subfield><subfield code="c">11</subfield><subfield code="h">2827-2837</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.3980217 |